Full Range driver - 5.1 setup possible?

[penguinpoo]

Hi All,

So, I've been thinking and searching hard on a new speaker setup ... I was thinking of building a surround system with Zigmahornets + FE103's ... plus a sub from KEF.

I've been internet hunting and not found a thing like this... But I thought it may work - any ideas?

As for a reciever I was thinking of getting a NAD (local shop here sells end of line NAD products near 1/3 of original price)...

O yeah - why - because I have some DVD-A discs (I got a SACD / DVD-A player from the said NAD shop - €99 reduced from €399 - very nice)

TWEETERS - nearlly fogot -is it worth (possible) adding tweeters to this concept (in my mind I was thinking tweeters in the front L+R Ziggies)

Any ways - what you think guys (and gals)?

 

[Cal Weldon]

Nothing wrong with the idea but I am wondering why you might wish to have such a large cabinet for the 103's if you are planning to use an auxiliary woofer. Those cabinets are intended to squeeze as much bass as you can from a small driver with the intent, I must assume, to eliminate the need for the extra woofer. The tweeter idea is purely subjective. Try them without first.

 

[penguinpoo]

Nothing wrong with the idea but I am wondering why you might wish to have such a large cabinet for the 103's if you are planning to use an auxiliary woofer. Those cabinets are intended to squeeze as much bass as you can from a small driver with the intent, I must assume, to eliminate the need for the extra woofer. The tweeter idea is purely subjective. Try them without first.

Hm, thats true - the reason I came up with this was:

1. At the moment I dont have any cabinet, and I would like to build my own, so I may aswell build the ziggy as its easy.

2. Its convientently floor standing - no mounting etc... and holds the speakerz at just above ear height

3. They look nice

4. I was guessing, if each component in the setup was at its best, the end result would be pretty good (my logic: If 2 ziggies are good, then with 4 or 5 I would be surrounded by good)

I guess that sub would just be used for the rumbling earth shattering bass during films (As musically I quite like the ziggys on their own - they dont need a sub) - this was jsut to 'feel' the base during explosive films.

Thanks!

 

[hm]

penguinpoo

Nothing wrong with the idea but I am wondering why you might wish to have such a large cabinet for the 103's .

i agree with Cal,
i would prefer a small bookshelf horn like my FLUTE down to 100 Hz,
in your case the sub has a hard work to get the adequate SPL,
better take two.

 

[penguinpoo]

i agree with Cal,
i would prefer a small bookshelf horn like my FLUTE down to 100 Hz,
in your case the sub has a hard work to get the adequate SPL,
better take two.

Interesting... whats SPL?

So the flute is designed to reproduce down to 100Hz? After that I am assuming the sub will pick up?

At the same time I'm also very new to all this!

Thanks,
Richard

 

[chrisb]

If by NAD components you mean a surround AV amp/receiver you'll likely have more than enough power on tap that unless room is very large, high sensitivity needn't be a priority.

(SPL= Sound Pressure Levels / "loudness" )

Do you already have the FE103s on hand? If not, the Mark Audio drivers are definitely work considering.

For a smaller budget, consider the CHR or CHP70 in Pensil enclosure for L&R mains, small (5.5 litre) sealed center, and Alpair6 M or P for surrounds. For a bit more ambitious project, the Alpair 7 for the front row are very nice (center will need to be a bit larger)

From the point of view of placement, Ziggies might not be the best idea for surrounds - something small enough to easily be mounted in the geometrically right locations with wall brackets sealed makes more sense.

 

[planet10]

Those cabinets are intended to squeeze as much bass as you can from a small driver with the intent, I must assume, to eliminate the need for the extra woofer.

Except, because it wasn't really "designed" it doesn't get much, if any, more bass than, say, something like the Solo 103.

The concept of FR for HT is a fine one. Keep your amp in mind when you choose drivers.

dave

 

[hm]

Hello,
further info for the Flute look here,
with measurements, german feedback, plan:
Flute
may be goo.. translate helps

 

[penguinpoo]

Except, because it wasn't really "designed" it doesn't get much, if any, more bass than, say, something like the Solo 103.

The concept of FR for HT is a fine one. Keep your amp in mind when you choose drivers.

dave

Well the amp will most likely be a NAD av/amp reciever (something like a T755 or what ever end of line NAD they have at the time, see: NAD Electronics :: T 755 A/V Surround Sound Receiver )

Asides from that whats FR and HT?

I like the look of the FLUTE that was mentioned - but appears it requires a lot of specific woodwork with specific angles (at the moment I dont have a workshop, so I'll have to give my local wood selling company a series of pieces I need, so complicated angles etc... are definatly out...) :-(

 

[penguinpoo]

Ahhh... FR = Full Range... whats HT (I just got it now!)

 

[TerryO]

I built a pair of Zigmas for the 103's bastard brother (Radio Shack 40-1197) and while they're imaging champs, they have a thin midbass sound that is (unfortunately) distracting. I ended up designing a "Fat-Bob" Bass Reflex cabinet ("The Hi-Tweek Black Box Nearfield Monitors") that has served me rather well. It sounds much better and and has drawn *a lot* of very positive comments. Some of the Planet10 designs would be an obvious choice over the Zigma's.

Best Regards,
TerryO

 

[planet10]

Ahhh... FR = Full Range... whats HT (I just got it now!)

HT = Home Theatre.

FR can also mean Frequency Response, so context is important.

dave

 

[Crossblade]

I'd go for 5x CHR-70 or EL70 over Fostex for Home Theater. The powerful multi-channel amps do no need the extra sensitivity and the Mark Audio have good Xmax for peaks in HT.

p.s. my system is Fostex-based, but if I had to design a HT now, I'd try the Mark Audios.

 

[penguinpoo]

I'd go for 5x CHR-70 or EL70 over Fostex for Home Theater. The powerful multi-channel amps do no need the extra sensitivity and the Mark Audio have good Xmax for peaks in HT.

p.s. my system is Fostex-based, but if I had to design a HT now, I'd try the Mark Audios.

So I could consider the CHR-70 in Pensil cases (I noticed the designs on the Mark Audio website)...

Then for a sub I assume I would just go with something like a basic KEF (they have a seperate inbuilt 250w amp)

 

[chrisb]

So I could consider the CHR-70 in Pensil cases (I noticed the designs on the Mark Audio website)...

Then for a sub I assume I would just go with something like a basic KEF (they have a seperate inbuilt 250w amp)

After trying both (Fostex and MA) in my own rig, I'd certainly concur with Crossblade.

The CHR or CHP 70 would be quite acceptable , but if there's a bit more flexibility in the budget, I can highly recommend the Alpair 7 (Pensil or MarKen7), and FWIW having tried a 3 different woofer arrangements, I'd suggest multiple woofers.

In my case a pair of triangular enclosures in front corners of room. Two Eastech drivers ( recycled from old Monsoon systems) per side, slot ported, and basic Rotel RB850 power amp. Since any HT receiver worth its salt these days has far better integrated bass management than most dedicated sub/plate amps, you really don't need to replicate that in the unit powering the woofers.

 

[Crossblade]

Of course I agree that Alpair (7/10/12) will give better results. But the budget will be higher. If you can afford these, do it! Here is a nice looking Alpair system, although I wouldn't do such floorstanders for the surround channels - I would do something that can be positioned higher than the listener (see THX's guide for positioning). Graham's hifi page

For the most audiophile-quality HT (according to me) you should cross high pass the all 5/7 speakers at 80Hz (my receiver has 90Hz only which is fine as well) even if they are 'fullrange' with good bass response (mine are 206eN (8") in 208eS horns). You just better position the 5/7 speakers for best imaging and leave the low end to the dedicated subwoofer(s), which must be positioned in-room for best bass performance! This way you have both better sound and better power handling/dynamics.

I agree that multiple subwoofers may be better. However, I think that you should position them in-room in a way, that they work ok. Here is a story of my recent 1vs2 sub experience:

I also have two passive speakers for the sub channel (my are vintage Altec Model 14 - 12" bass in ~200l enclosure bass reflex) powered by a stereo amplifier, which gets the signal from the .1 of the AV processor.
I use them for both HT (5.1) and for music /pop music, hip hop, etc/ configured as 2.1. Recently, I noticed while listening to Rihanna - Rockstar 101 that even though my room has been treated significantly acoustically (lots of bass trapping, etc) that my bass is just not right in the listening position with one subwoofer only. So, I connected the second speaker -no improvement - and started optimizing its position. (My horns occupy the whole width of the room and the 'subwoofers' are symmetrically to their inner sides). I ended up with the left sub facing me and the right one facing towards the front wall (I see its back). I may get even better results if I try to move it to any of the sides of the room or the back, but I was too lazy to do it (it is heavy) at the moment.

So, my conclusion on subwoofers number is: the results with 2 and with 1 have nothing in common - 2 is better than 1. The second one helped me get the bass in the listening position and not only in the corners/next to the room boundaries. Still, it didn't helped at all until I repositioned it!
Just having 2, 4 or more subwoofers doesn't guarantee good bass, especially in untreated rooms, if you do not position them for sound (not for WAF - wife acceptance). You must find their best position by listening!

 

[penguinpoo]

Grahams HiFi page certainly looked nice - dual alpair 7 in the back - maybe I would consider 4 identical speakers (ie alpair 12) + centre channel.

With no sub (phase issues etc...)

Possibly all pencil enclousres (makes construction simple).

how many watts per channel would my amp have to be? Do you think a NAD amp / AV receiver with 50w par channel would be enough or would 80w / ch be better?

Thanks

 

[norman bates]

50w vs 80w = whats 1.5db more going to do?

50 watts and you will have too much fmd, 50w is plenty.

Norman

 

[jimbro]

I'm a little surprised by the recommendation of Alpair7s with a NAD AVR. I have a middle of the pack Yamaha and have assumed it wouldn't be worthy of Alpairs so I decided on EL70s. Is the NAD that much better or have I underestimated the Yamaha?

 

[Bob Brines]

I'm a little surprised by the recommendation of Alpair7s with a NAD AVR. I have a middle of the pack Yamaha and have assumed it wouldn't be worthy of Alpairs so I decided on EL70s. Is the NAD that much better or have I underestimated the Yamaha?

IMO you underestimate Yamaha. For a midfi receiver, you can't do much better. How much you need to spend for something better in an open question. I have fully enabled Fostex's on mine. When I do demos, I use a pp tube amp because everyone expects tubes with "good" speakers. The tubes sound different from the Yammy. Better is in the ears of the beholder.

Bob